PTAB

CBM2016-00051

TradeStation Group, Inc. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Graphical User Interface for Electronic Trading
  • Brief Description: The ’374 patent relates to a method and system for electronic trading using a graphical user interface (GUI). The interface displays market data with a static price axis alongside dynamic bid and ask quantity columns, enabling a trader to place an order via a single action on the interface.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

This petition for Covered Business Method (CBM) Review presented two primary grounds for unpatentability based on 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Ground 1: Claims 1-36 are Patent-Ineligible Under §101

  • Prior Art Relied Upon (to show conventionality): Weiss (a 1985 publication showing a hand-written trading ledger), Gutterman (Patent 5,297,031), TSE (a 1994 trading terminal operation guide), and the Amazon one-click patent (Patent 5,960,411).
  • Core Argument: Petitioner’s argument followed the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.
    • Abstract Idea (Alice Step 1): Petitioner argued that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of making market trades based on displayed information and user input, which is a fundamental economic practice. Petitioner asserted this practice long predates computers and can be performed with pen and paper, as evidenced by the Weiss reference, which shows a trading ledger with bids and asks organized along a vertical price axis. The problem solved by the patent—reducing trade entry time—was characterized as a business problem, not a technical one.
    • Lack of Inventive Concept (Alice Step 2): Petitioner contended the claim elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, add nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing device was argued to be insufficient. The core claimed features were asserted to be conventional: the "static price axis" was described as a known display choice shown in the manual Weiss ledger and the electronic Gutterman patent, and the "single action" trade entry was argued to be a conventional feature taught by references like TSE and the Amazon one-click patent. Petitioner concluded that the combination of these elements does not improve the functioning of the computer itself but merely uses conventional technology to automate a longstanding human activity.

Ground 2: Claim 36 is Outside Permissible Statutory Classes of Subject Matter

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: This ground relied on legal interpretation and case law, primarily In re Nuijten, rather than technical prior art.
  • Core Argument:
    • Claim Language Interpretation: Petitioner argued that the term "computer readable medium" in independent claim 36, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is not limited to non-transitory media. This interpretation was asserted to encompass transitory, propagating signals.
    • Legal Argument: Based on the holding in In re Nuijten, Petitioner contended that such transitory signals are not a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." Therefore, claim 36 encompasses subject matter that falls outside the four statutory classes of patentable subject matter defined in §101. Petitioner further argued that the preamble language "having stored therein" does not cure this defect, as information can be temporarily "recorded" on transitory media.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed constructions for key claim terms central to its invalidity arguments under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard.
  • "Mapping, by the computing device, the plurality of sequential price levels to the plurality of graphical locations": Petitioner proposed that the BRI includes both creating a logical correlation between price levels and graphical locations, as well as the physical act of displaying the price levels on the screen. This construction supports the argument that the claims are directed to the mere presentation of information.
  • "Computer Readable Medium": Petitioner proposed the construction "an intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on." This intentionally broad definition was used to support the Ground 2 argument that the claim encompasses non-statutory transitory signals.
  • "Single Action": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "any action by a user within a short period of time, whether comprising one or more clicks," thereby explicitly including a conventional double-click. This supports the argument that the single-action feature is neither novel nor inventive.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • A central contention of the petition was that the ’374 patent fails to solve a technical problem with a technical solution. Petitioner argued that the patent addresses the purely business problem of a trader "missing the price" due to market volatility. The claimed solution—rearranging information on a GUI with a static price axis—was characterized as a mere presentational choice, not an improvement to computer functionality, network performance, or specific human-computer interaction technology.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • As a CBM petition, the filing included extensive arguments for standing, which are analogous to arguments against discretionary denial in an IPR.
  • Petitioner argued the ’374 patent was eligible for CBM review because its claims are "financial in nature," as they are explicitly directed to "the electronic trading of commodities."
  • Petitioner argued that the patent does not fall under the "technological invention" exception to CBM review. It contended the claims lack any novel or unobvious technological feature, instead using generic computer components to automate a known business practice. It argued the GUI is simply a tool to perform a financial process, not a technological invention in itself.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of a Covered Business Method Patent Review and the cancellation of all challenged claims (1-36) of Patent 7,904,374 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.